I missed most of this weekend's excitement about Sarah Palin and her youngest son Trig, born on April 18 of this year. As I pieced it together, here's what went on.
Governor Palin announced on March 6 that she was seven months pregnant. In mid-April she was giving a speech in Texas when she felt contractions and leaked some amniotic fluid, but did not go into labor. She called her doctor and flew to Seattle and then to Anchorage. At Anchorage she drove, or was driven, 40 miles to a small, modern hospital near her house, where labor was induced and where it was announced that she gave birth the next day to her son.
On August 30, a contributor to the Daily Kos website who posts under the name ArcXIX published a long analysis in which he argued that the boy was not Governor Palin's, but was actually the son of her daughter Bristol, and that the Governor and her husband were covering that up and claiming the baby as theirs, presumably to protect their daughter. Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic linked to the Daily Kos story on August 31 without agreeing with the premise; Mr. Sullivan simply suggested that the McCain-Palin campaign should respond to it by releasing appropriate medical records.
I won't repeat the entire argument; it was ingeniously constructed; unfortunately for the author, it appears to be dead wrong. One of the author's key points was that Governor Palin didn't appear to be pregnant in photographs taken during the winter of 2007-08. The author missed this one, which a blogger found (anything will eventually be found, thanks mainly to Google) on a Flickr account, showing a distinctly pregnant governor in March of 2008. ArcXIX did make a second try, posting this follow-up on August 31. One piece of evidence was a photograph that included the Governor's daughter, claimed by ArcXIX to have been taken around December 2007 even though the newspaper it came from, the Anchorage Daily News, took the picture in October 2006.
The story itself, I think, has been sufficiently debunked, and the credibility of "ArcXIX" sufficiently destroyed. It did, however, attract a lot of comments (over 1000 between the two posts). Two thoughts struck me as I read the comments and other internet postings on the story, one of which is the old political saying, "It's not the crime but the coverup." Presidents Clinton and Nixon provide good examples of this saying in action.
The allegation relied heavily on photographs of the Governor and her family from the Governor's official web page, maintained by the State of Alaska. Sometime over the weekend, some of the photos disappeared and others were moved. At some point -- in the next day or two -- the state will have to say who deleted and rearranged the photographs, and who ordered that it be done.
The other thought is that as the story developed and became more clear, the thrust of the comments moved from "Sarah Palin participated in a deception by passing her daughter's baby off as her own" (the now-debunked allegation of the Daily Kos poster) to "Sarah Palin is unfit to be vice president because she didn't disclose that her daughter became pregnant before getting married." That's out of line for two reasons. First is that the doings of a candidate's family members don't say anything about the qualifications of the candidate (any more than the antics of Hugh Rodham reflect on the qualifications of his sister). Second is that if we limited high office to only those adults whose children didn't jump the starting gun, our presidents would mostly be childless and we'd have trouble filling the House and the Senate.
Recent Comments